Complaint - Grapski v. Alachua - Federal Civil Rights lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHARLES JAMES GRAPSKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO.:

) ) )

GAN, individually, ) )

) ) )

v. CITY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation, ) CLOVIS WATSON, JR., individually, ) JEAN CALDERWOOD, individually, ) ROBERT E. JERNIGIB COERPER, individually, and PATRICK BARCIA, JR., individually, Defendants. /

COMPLAINT

RATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEFFOR DECLA

AND DAMAGES

n award of

Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 seeking a declaratory

judgment declaring certain policies, practices and actions of the City of Alachua, and

certain of its individual officers and representatives, to be unconstitutional under the

First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the

corre pondis ng provisions of the Florida Constitution. Plaintiff further seeks a

damages arising from those unconstitutional policies, practices and actions.

JURISDICTION

1. This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or

Case 1:10-cv-00140-MP -AK Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 78

Page 2

other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...

2. This Court has “Federal Question” jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 to hear cases arising under the Constitution of the United States, under 28 U.S.C.

§1343(3) to redress the deprivation under color of state law of any right, privilege or

imm nity seu cured by the Constitution, and under 28 U.S.C. §1343(4) to secure equitable

or o r relithe ef for the protection of civil rights.

3. The Court has the authority to issue declaratory judgments and permanent

injunctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202, and Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P.

4. This Court may enter an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988.

5. This Court is authorized to award damages for violation of Plaintiff’s

cons ution

tion

red under the First,

tit al rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

6. This Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent

viola ns otio f the Plaintiff’s rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of the

Unit Stateed s and Title 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, specifically seeking redress for the

depriva under color of state statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights,

privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The

ought to be protected in this cause of action arise and are securights s

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

7. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1366.


Page 3

8. Plaintiff has satisfied the notice requirements of §768.28(6) UFla.Stat.U by

notifying the Mayor of ALACHUA by letters dated November 22, 2006, in regard to

claims arising out of incidents that occurred in 2006, and dated February 19, 2007 and

October 12, 2007, in regard to incidents that occurred in 2007.

9. ALACHUA received the notice letter pertaining to 2006 incidents in 2006.

10. ALACHUA received the notice letters pertaining to 2007 incidents in

2007.

VENUE

11. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division,

since the p olicies and acts complained of are those of the CITY OF ALACHUA,

FLORIDA, which is within the district and geographical area assigned to the Gainesville

Division.

PARTIES

12. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff CHARLES JAMES GRAPSKI

(hereinafter referred to as “GRAPSKI”) was a citizen and elector of Alachua County and

the State of Florida.

13. At all times relevant hereto, the CITY OF ALACHUA, FLORIDA

(hereinafter referred to as “ALACHUA” or the “CITY”) was a Florida municipal

corporation established in accordance with Article VIII §2, Florida Constitution or

preceding constitutional provisions.

14. At all times relevant hereto, CLOVIS WATSON, JR. (hereinafter referred

to as “WATSON”), was City Manager of the City of Alachua. At all relevant times,

WA ON TS was also designated as Alachua’s Police Commissioner. WATSON is sued in


Page 4

his individual capacity.

15. At all times relevant hereto, ALACHUA had reported to the Florida

Department of Law Enforcement that WATSON was employed by ALACHUA as a full

time law enforcement officer.

erved as Mayor of the City of Alachua.

to as BAR

16. At all times relevant hereto, JEAN CALDERWOOD (hereinafter referred

to as “CALDERWOOD”), served as a representative of the City of Alachua. At times she

held the position of Mayor of the City of Alachua, and at other times she served in the

capacity of a City Commissioner of the City of Alachua. CALDERWOOD is sued in her

indiv dual ci apacity.

17. At all times relevant to allegations involving GIB COERPER (hereinafter

referred to as “COERPER”), that individual s

COERPER is sued in his individual capacity.

18. At all times relevant hereto, ROBERT E. JERNIGAN (hereinafter referred

to a JERNs “ IGAN”), was employed by ALACHUA as Chief of Police. JERNIGAN is

sued in his individual capacity.

19. At all time relevant hereto, PATRICK BARCIA, JR. (hereinafter referred

“ CIA”) was a police officer employed by the CITY OF ALACHUA. BARCIA

is sued in his individual capacity.

FACTS

20. GRAPSKI is a political and social activist with a keen interest in the

governance and operations of the CITY OF ALACHUA.

21. GRAPSKI has led a campaign to foster strict compliance with the public

records s of the State of Florida (Chapter 119) and is particularly interested in what he law


Page 5

believes is the blatant disregard of those laws by ALACHUA. GRAPSKI has submitted

frequent public records requests to the CITY on his own behalf and as a principal in a

non-profit corporation known as The Open Records Project, Inc.

22. One of GRAPSKI’s disputes over the CITY’s public records policies and

Sunshine Law violations was recently decided substantially in his favor in the landmark

case of Grapski v. City of Alachua, 31 So.3d 193, 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

23. GRAPSKI has also been a vocal critic of the City administration and of

certain City personnel, including Defendants WATSON, CALDERWOOD and

JER GANI . Part of that criticism has centered on the fact that WATSON held a variety

of positions in City government in apparent violation of Florida law.

N

24.

26.

GRAPSKI has been a frequent speaker at public hearings including City

Commission meetings.

25. GRAPSKI has also been active in political protests and litigation against

the CITY OF ALACHUA and various officials of the CITY with respect to the 2006 City

election which was marred by voter fraud and widespread procedural irregularities.

Plaintiff has a constitutional right to petition government for redress of

grievances.

27. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to engage in political speech and to

speak with representatives of CITY government on matters of concern to the Plaintiff.

28. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to access public property and public

officials on the same terms and conditions as other citizens of ALACHUA.

29. Plaintiff has the right under the Florida Constitution and Florida law to

requ t andes access public records.


Page 6

U2006 ARREST – ALLEGED ILLEGAL RECORDING

30. In the spring 2006, GRAPSKI was a candidate for the House of

Representatives of the State of Florida in the district that includes the City of Alachua

within its constituency.

31. Eileen McCoy, a citizen of Alachua, commenced civil action 06 CA-1590

in th circuie t court for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Alachua County to

cont Alacest hua’s 2006 election.

32. An organization in which GRAPSKI was a principal joined as a plaintiff

in civil action 06 CA-1590.

33. GRAPSKI and a fellow political activist, Michael Canney, made an

appointment with ALACHUA’s officials to inspect public records pertaining to the

election on April 28, 2006.

34. On April 28, 2006, GRAPSKI and McCoy went to ALACHUA’s City

Hall for the purpose of inspecting and copying public records pertaining to the 2006

election.

35. ALACHUA’s officials denied GRAPSKI’s and McCoy’s requests to

inspect records.

36. GRAPSKI and McCoy went to WATSON’s office to request his

assistance in inspecting records.

37. GRAPSKI placed a voice recorder in plain view on a table in WATSON’s

office and took a seat.

38. WATSON arrived and took a seat opposite GRAPSKI.

39. When he entered the office, WATSON saw the recorder on his desk.


Page 7

WATSON knew that the conversation between GRAPSKI and himself was being

recorded on GRAPSKI’s recorder.

40. WATSON consented to GRAPSKI’s recording the conversation.

41. WATSON’s consent is recorded on GRAPSKI’s recorder.

ated, clearly and forcefully, that he intended to

42. WATSON scheduled a time on Monday, May 1, 2006 for GRAPSKI and

McCoy to return to ALACHUA’s City Hall to inspect election records.

43. In the meantime WATSON and GRAPSKI exchanged emails about

recording conversations. GRAPSKI st

continue recording conversations with public officials about public business because he

had a legal right to do so.

44. WATSON determined that he was going to arrest GRAPSKI and charge

him with a crime for having recorded the conversation of April 28, 2006.

45. WATSON knew at the time he made the decision to arrest GRAPSKI that

there was no probable cause to arrest GRAPSKI for having recorded the conversation of

April 28, 2006, or for any other reason.

46. Sometime between April 28, 2006 and May 1, 2006, WATSON conferred

with ALACHUA’s Mayor, CALDERWOOD, about his intention to arrest GRAPSKI or

have him arrested.

47. Mayor, CALDERWOOD ratified WATSON’s decision and informed him

that ACHAL UA would “back up” WATSON’s decision to arrest GRAPSKI.

48. With WATSON’s knowledge and consent, GRAPSKI returned to

ALACHUA’s City Hall on Monday, May 1, 2006, to inspect public records pertaining to

the 2006 election.


decision on behalf of ALACHUA and he made the decision as the final decision making

Page 8

49. WATSON directed ALACHUA’s police chief JERNIGAN to be present

on that occasion and to bring additional police officers to arrest GRAPSKI.

50. While GRAPSKI was inspecting public records with WATSON’s consent,

WATSON arrested GRAPSKI, or directed Chief JERNIGAN to arrest GRAPSKI, on

52.

53.

charges that GRAPSKI had illegally recorded the conversation of April 28, 2006 referred

to herein.

51. ALACHUA, WATSON and JERNIGAN arrested GRAPSKI against his

will and without GRAPSKI’s consent.

GRAPSKI did not illegally voice record the conversation with WATSON

on A ril 28,p 2006

WATSON, JERNIGAN and CALDERWOOD had no reasonable grounds

or pr able ob cause to arrest or to detain GRAPSKI.

54. No reasonable public official or law enforcement officer could have

believed that GRAPSKI violated any law when he recorded the conversation with

WATSON on April 28, 2006.

55. WATSON, JERNIGAN, and CALDERWOOD knew that GRAPSKI had

not committed a crime in recording the conversation with WATSON on April 28, 2006.

56. GRAPSKI committed no crime when he attempted to inspect public

records on May 1, 2006, and no person could have believed that there were any

reas able on grounds or probable cause to believe that he did.

57. WATSON made the decision to arrest GRAPSKI while acting as

ALACHUA’s City Manager. As City Manager, WATSON had the authority to make this


Page 9

authority for the CITY.

58. CALDERWOOD ratified WATSON’s decision to arrest GRAPSKI and

made the decision to provide ALACHUA’s support for GRAPSKI’s arrest. As Mayor,

CALDERWOOD had the authority to make this decision on behalf of ALACHUA and

she made the decision as the final decision making authority for the CITY.

59. Against GRAPSKI’s consent, ALACHUA’s officers handcuffed and

physically removed him from ALACHUA’s City Hall, transported him to jail in

Gainesville, and booked him into the County jail in Gainesville.

60. GRAPSKI was incarcerated in the County jail on May 1, 2006 and

remained there until the morning of May 2, 2006.

61. WATSON swore to and signed a complaint against GRAPSKI and filed it

with the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida to instigate a prosecution

against GRAPSKI. WATSON swore in the complaint that GRAPSKI committed a felony

when he recorded the April 28, 2006 conversation between WATSON and GRAPSKI

described herein.

62. WATSON initiated this prosecution as ALACHUA’s final decision maker

with the knowledge and approval of ALACHUA and CALDERWOOD.

63. No reasonable law enforcement officer could have believed that probable

cause existed to initiate a prosecution against GRAPSKI on charges that he unlawfully

recorded the conversation with WATSON on April 28, 2006.

64. WATSON, or another of ALACHUA’s employees or agents, seized

GRAPSKI’s voice recorder when he was arrested, without a warrant or court order.

65. Based upon the complaint filed by WATSON, the Office of the State


Page 10

Attorney filed an information against GRAPSKI in case number 2006-CF-002034-A and

charged him with the felony crime of illegally recording the April 28, 2006 conversation

with WATSON.

66. These charges were without legal merit at the time they were filed.

70. ymer

67. With ALACHUA’s knowledge and approval WATSON agreed to testify

against GRAPSKI.

68. On November 16, 2006 the case against GRAPSKI came to be tried by

jury before the Honorable Aymer Curtin.

69. With ALACHUA’s knowledge and approval, WATSON came to the

courthouse on November 16, 2006 with the intention of testifying against GRAPSKI.

Upon hearing GRAPSKI’s pre-trial motion to dismiss, Judge A

Curtin dismissed the charges in case number 2006-CF-002034-A against GRAPSKI as

being without legal or factual merit.

71. The trial court’s order in case number 2006-CF-002034-A was not

appealed and is now unappealable.

72. The prosecution against GRAPSKI in case number 2006-CF-002034-A

terminated in GRAPSKI’s favor.

73. The prosecution that ALACHUA ,WATSON, CALDERWOOD and the

City’s other agents, officers and employees commenced against GRAPSKI was initiated

and ntinuco ed without probable cause and for improper purposes.

74. ALACHUA, WATSON and CALDERWOOD arrested and charged

GRAPSKI with a crime with the specific intent and purpose of interfering with

GRAPSKI’s constitutional rights to inspect ALACHUA’s public records; to instruct his


Page 11

representatives and to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by Article I, §5

Florida Constitution; to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

75. These actions were taken as part of a calculated and intentional effort to

77.

thwart GRAPSKI in his efforts to challenge the CITY’s election and to bring attention to

impr er prop actices at the CITY.

76. ALACHUA, WATSON and CALDERWOOD arrested and charged

GRAPSKI with a crime for the purpose of retaliating against GRAPSKI for having

exer sed hci is First Amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA to contest

Alachua’s 2006 election on grounds of misconduct of its officers and officials.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts related to

his May 1, 2006 arrest, GRAPSKI suffered the loss of rights guaranteed to him under the

First Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2006 Exclusion from City Hall

78. Notwithstanding his arrest, GRAPSKI continued with his campaign to

obtain public records, to actively participate in Alachua politics and to petition the

CITY’s representatives for needed reforms.

79. GRAPSKI made additional requests to inspect and copy public records

pertaining to the 2006 election and other public records maintained by ALACHUA.

80. ALACHUA refused to comply with most of GRAPSKI’s subsequent

public records requests.

81. In December 2006, GRAPSKI went to the offices of City Attorney Marian

B. Rush to make a request to inspect and copy public records of ALACHUA contained in


Page 12

her office. As City Attorney, Rush was the custodian of the public records which Plaintiff

sought and was the proper official to receive GRAPSKI’s request pursuant to Chapter

119 of the Florida Statutes.

82. Marian Rush refused to accept GRAPSKI’s public records request and

th earlier public records

contacted the Gainesville Police Department to have GRAPSKI issued a trespass warning

to prevent him from making public records requests in her office.

83. Marian Rush sent State Attorney Cervone a message stating that she

wanted to see GRAPSKI jailed.

84. On February 12, 2007 GRAPSKI went to ALACHUA’s temporary City

Hall1 with citizens Tamara Robbins and Michael Canney for the purpose of inspecting

public records and discussing ALACHUA’s failure to comply wi

requests.

85. ALACHUA’S record custodian Alan Henderson refused to provide

GRAPSKI public records or to permit GRAPSKI to inspect them and refused to discuss

GRAPSKI’s requests with him. GRAPSKI then requested that WATSON assist him in

obtaining the records.

86. WATSON refused to assist GRAPSKI in obtaining access to public

records and directed GRAPSKI to leave the City Hall.

87. WATSON had no reason and no legal basis to direct GRAPSKI to leave

1 The “temporary” City Hall was utilized by the CITY while its permanent facilities were being renovated. During the renovations, the CITY conducted all of its business from the temporary City Hall and those facilities were fully accessible to and by members of the public.


ority, the notice was in fact illegal and void as applied to GRAPSKI.

Page 13

the City Hall.

88. WATSON instructed Chief JERNIGAN to require GRAPSKI to leave the

premises.

89. WATSON made the decision to eject GRAPSKI from City Hall while

ublic records laws of Florida.

acting as ALACHUA’s City Manager. As City Manager, WATSON had the authority to

mak his de t ecision on behalf of ALACHUA and he made the decision as the final

decision making authority for the CITY.

90. GRAPSKI asked JERNIGAN to take his complaint against WATSON,

Hend rson ae nd ALACHUA for violating Florida’s public records laws.

91. JERNIGAN refused to accept GRAPSKI’s complaint that WATSON,

Henderson and ALACHUA were violating the p

92. At JERNIGAN’s direction, Alachua police officer Smith gave GRAPSKI

a wr en treitt spass warning.

93. JERNIGAN and Smith were following WATSON’s directions.

94. Officer Smith orally directed GRAPSKI to leave the site of ALACHUA’s

temp rary Co ity Hall and its parking lot and road access.

95. Officer Smith also orally directed GRAPSKI not to return to the

designated site of ALACHUA’s temporary City Hall for 12 months.

96. WATSON, ALACHUA and its officers and agents excluded GRAPSKI

from the premises of ALACHUA’s temporary City Hall without probable cause and for

improper purposes.

97. While that trespass notice was issued under color of state law and

auth


Page 14

98. WATSON, JERNIGAN and ALACHUA specifically intended to interfere

with GRAPSKI’s constitutional rights to inspect ALACHUA’s public records; to instruct

his representatives and to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by Article I, §5

Florida Constitution; to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; to retaliate against him for

havi exerng cised his First Amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA to

contest Alachua’s 2006 election; and to retaliate against him for having prevailed in case

number 2006-CF-002034-A they had commenced against him.

99. GRAPSKI’s inability to return to ALACHUA’s City Hall deprived him of

rights guaranteed by the Florida and United States Constitution to inspect ALACHUA’s

public records, to petition government for redress of grievances and to instruct his

representatives.

2007 Arrest at City Commission Meeting

100. At approximately 7:00 P.M. on February 12, 2007, GRAPSKI went to the

elementary school in the City of Alachua where the ALACHUA’s City Commission had

convened in a regular public meeting.

01 1 . This is a different premises from the site of ALACHUA’s temporary City

Hall designated in the trespass warning referred to hereinabove.

102. As a citizen and elector, GRAPSKI had a constitutional right guaranteed

by Article I §24 Florida Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution to attend ALACHUA’s City Commission meeting.

103. As a citizen and elector GRAPSKI had a constitutional right to attend

ALA HUAC ’s city commission meeting to instruct his representatives and to seek redress


Page 15

of grievances guaranteed by Article I §5 Florida Constitution and by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

104. The City Commission routinely sets aside time at its public meetings for

citizen comments on topics of concern to members of the public, including issues which

CALDERWOOD, WATSON and City Attorney Rush

do not appear on the meeting agenda.

105. During the period of the meeting allocated for citizen comment,

GRAPSKI addressed ALACHUA’s City Commission about the ongoing refusal of

ALACHUA’s employees and officials to respond to his public records requests.

106. GRAPSKI also addressed ALACHUA’s City Commission about the then-

pending law suit challenging Alachua’s 2006 election.

107. GRAPSKI handed

a copy of a letter pertaining to the requests he had made to ALACHUA’s officials for

public records.

108. Mayor CALDERWOOD admonished GRAPSKI with what she referred to

as a nal w“fi arning” for being “disruptive.”

109. GRAPSKI returned to his seat in the front row of the public audience.

110. GRAPSKI remained in his seat until he was forcibly removed against his

consent by ALACHUA’s police officials as described hereinbelow.

111. Persons in the audience sitting behind GRAPSKI made comments to him

and out hab im.

112. GRAPSKI turned in his chair without arising and in a soft voice offered to

hand the persons sitting behind him a copy of the letter he had provided ALACHUA’s

officials to permit these persons to review it for themselves.


Page 16

113. These persons indicated they did not wish to review the documents

GRAPSKI proffered to them.

114. Without more, GRAPSKI retained the document and silently returned his

attention to the podium.

GRA KI

caus o rem

115. GRAPSKI did not rise from his seat, did not raise his voice, did not

interfere with or disrupt any speaker, and did not otherwise disturb the meeting.

116. GRAPSKI did not voluntarily interfere with the continuation of the

meeting.

117. As GRAPSKI was addressing the individuals sitting behind him, other

mem rs ofbe the audience were also speaking to one another. GRAPSKI’s actions, attitude

and speaking voice were no different than any other member of the audience attending

the meeting.

118. Without provocation or probable cause, Mayor CALDERWOOD

summarily singled out GRAPSKI and accused him of disrupting the meeting.

119. Mayor CALDERWOOD ordered Chief of Police JERNIGAN to make

PS leave the meeting.

120. GRAPSKI had a right to attend the meeting guaranteed by Article 1 §§5

and 24 Florida Constitution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, and Mayor CALDERWOOD had no reason, justification or probable

e t ove him.

121. Calderwood’s order to have GRAPSKI removed from the ALACHUA

Commission meeting was void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances.


Page 17

122. GRAPSKI retained his seat.

123. Mayor CALDERWOOD again directed Chief JERNIGAN to force

GRAPSKI to leave the meeting.

124. As Mayor, CALDERWOOD had the authority to make this decision on

the

m from the meeting.

.

behalf of ALACHUA and she made the decision to have GRAPSKI removed from

meeting as the final decision making authority for the CITY.

125. Chief JERNIGAN approached GRAPSKI where he was seated.

126. GRAPSKI maintained his seat and voluntarily and peaceably held up his

hands together so that the police could seize them if they chose to do so.

127. Chief JERNIGAN placed handcuffs on GRAPSKI’s upheld hands and

ordered two of ALACHUA’s police officers to remove hi

128 ALACHUA’s police officers did physically remove GRAPSKI from the

building.

129. WATSON stepped down from the dais and as ALACHUA’s Police

Commissioner and City Manager oversaw Chief JERNIGAN and his officers as they

physically removed GRAPSKI from the meeting.

130. JERNIGAN and ALACHUA’s officers physically battered and removed

GRAPSKI from ALACHUA’s City Commission meeting with force and violence and

against GRAPSKI’s will and consent, thereby causing GRAPSKI to suffer pain, physical

injury and humiliation.

131. On information and belief, GRAPSKI alleges that no other citizens have

been forcibly removed from an ALACHUA City Commission meeting in the manner in

which GRAPSKI was removed, nor has any other citizen been arrested for disrupting a


officers to “Taser” GRAPSKI if he did not stand up. WATSON supervised and oversaw

ALACHUA’s officials when they arrested GRAPSKI and removed him from the

Page 18

meeting of the City Commission.

132. GRAPSKI did not resist the wrongful removal and arrest and did not

engage in or threaten violence of any kind.

133. GRAPSKI remained passive through his arrest. Because he did not get up

from his seat following his handcuffing and arrest, ALACHUA officers picked him up

and dragged him from the meeting.

134. At one point, ALACHUA’s officers dropped GRAPSKI on concrete

causing GRAPSKI to suffer pain; GRAPSKI’s limbs jerked reflexively in the officers’

grasp as a consequence of being dropped to the ground.

135. When out of sight of the audience, Chief JERNIGAN ordered one of the

officers to “Taser” GRAPSKI if he did not stand up.

136. GRAPSKI had done nothing to justify using the Taser against him and

ALACHUA’s officers knew it. GRAPSKI was at that time restrained and was not

resisting his unlawful arrest in any way.

137. GRAPSKI was terrified that he would be assaulted with a Taser as a result

of JE NIGAR N’s order that the device be used against him and GRAPSKI’s fear of being

“Tasered” was reasonable under the circumstances.

138. ALACHUA’s officers did not obey Chief JERNIGAN’s order to “Taser”

GRAPSKI.

139. WATSON was present during the entire time ALACHUA’s officers were

removing GRAPSKI from the public meeting, including when JERNIGAN ordered the


JERNIGAN’s complaint charged GRAPSKI with disorderly conduct,

resisting arrest with violence, resisting arrest without violence, and trespass based upon

the incident described above.

148. As ALACHUA’s Chief of Police JERNIGAN had the authority to make

this decision on behalf of ALACHUA and he made the decision to charge GRAPSKI as

Page 19

meeting.

140. As ALACHUA’s City Manager and Police Commissioner WATSON had

the authority to make the decision to arrest and charge GRAPSKI on behalf of

ALACHUA and he made these decisions as the final decision making authority for the

harged him with trespass after

CITY.

141. WATSON did not countermand JERNIGAN’s order to “Taser”

GRAPSKI.

142. JERNIGAN arrested GRAPSKI and c

warning, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest without violence, and resisting arrest with

violence.

143. GRAPSKI committed no crime and is innocent of all charges.

144. No reasonable police officer could have believed that GRAPSKI had

committed any crime under these facts and circumstances.

145. ALACHUA’s police officers kept handcuffs on GRAPSKI until they

booked him into jail about two hours later, on February 12, 2007.

146. On February 12, 2007, JERNIGAN swore to and executed a criminal

complaint against GRAPSKI and filed it with the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial

Circuit of Florida.

147.


Page 20

the final decision making authority for the CITY.

149. No reasonable police officer could have believed that grounds existed for

initiating a prosecution on these charges against GRAPSKI.

150. GRAPSKI remained incarcerated in jail until about 3:00 P.M. on February

plaint made by ALACHUA and JERNIGAN, and the

r improper purposes.

13, 2007.

151. The sworn com

arrest of GRAPSKI, were made without probable cause and fo

152. WATSON, CALDERWOOD, JERNIGAN and ALACHUA specifically

intended to interfere with GRAPSKI’s constitutional rights to inspect ALACHUA’s

public records; to instruct his representatives and to petition for redress of grievances

guaranteed by Article I §5 Florida Constitution; to petition for redress of grievances

guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; to

retaliate against him for having exercised his First Amendment right to join in the suit

agai t ALns ACHUA to contest Alachua’s 2006 election; and to retaliate against him for

having prevailed in case number 2006-CF-002034-A they had commenced against him.

153. By letter dated February 19, 2007, GRAPSKI informed the City of

Alac a thahu t he intended to sue the ALACHUA, JERNIGAN and CALDERWOOD for

unlawful arrest committed against him on February 17, 2007.

154. By letter dated March 1, 2007 JERNIGAN, acting for ALACHUA,

prov d Side tate Attorney Bill Cervone a portfolio of several hundred pages outlining

occasions in which GRAPSKI and Michael Canney (a party to the election law suit

agai ALAnst CHUA) had attempted to obtain public records from ALACHUA and its

employees and officials.


Page 21

155. WATSON approved JERNIGAN’s actions in collecting this information

and providing it to the State Attorney.

156. By letter of March 1, 2007 JERNIGAN, acting for ALACHUA, provided

the Sheriff of Alachua County a portfolio of several hundred pages outlining occasions in

to the State

an

which GRAPSKI and Michael Canney had attempted to obtain public records from

ALA UACH and its employees and officials.

157. WATSON approved JERNIGAN’s actions in collecting this information

and providing it to the Sheriff.

158. JERNIGAN and WATSON provided this information

Attorney d the Sheriff, in an effort to pressure the authorities to prosecute GRAPSKI

without probable cause and for improper purposes. In particular, the CITY, JERNIGAN

and WATSON intended to interfere with GRAPSKI’s constitutional rights to attend

ALACHUA City Commission meetings; to inspect ALACHUA’s public records; to

instruct his representatives and to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by Article

I §5 Florida Constitution; to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; to retaliate against GRAPSKI

for having exercised his First Amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA to

contest Alachua’s 2006 election; and to retaliate against him for having prevailed in case

number 2006-CF-002034-A they had commenced against him.

159. The State Attorney filed no information against GRAPSKI arising from

the charges of trespass, disruption and resisting arrest, and the initiated prosecution

against GRAPSKI terminated in his favor.


Page 22

USecond Removal from City Commission Meeting

160. On Friday, August 3, 2007 GRAPSKI deposited a check for more than

$700 in his account in his bank account in the Millennium Bank branch in Alachua.

161. On Sunday August 5, 2007 at about 10:00 pm, GRAPSKI bought gasoline

r deposited GRAPSKI’s check

and APS

at a Kangaroo gasoline and convenience store in Alachua.

162. GRAPSKI gave his check to the attendant in the amount of $40 and a few

cents to pay for the gas he had purchased.

163. Ultimately, the Kangaroo station operato

GR KI’s bank paid it.

164. On August 5, 2007 Kangaroo’s electronic service did not inform

Kangaroo that GRAPSKI had made the deposit on August 3 and did not guarantee the

check. However, the check was never dishonored by the bank and was paid when

properly presented in the ordinary course of business and in accordance with the bank’s

usua licil po es and procedures.

165. The Kangaroo attendant called an Alachua police officer to complain.

166. An Alachua police officer investigated and filed APD Offense Event

Report 2007008289, which concluded: “No charges are being filed and there is no further

information to report.”

167. On the evening of Monday, August 6, 2007, GRAPSKI attended

ALACHUA’s City Commission meeting.

168. During the citizens’ comment period, a local citizen, Robert Sharpe, told

ALACHUA’s City Commission that GRAPSKI was guilty of passing bad checks and

asked the Commission to prevent GRAPSKI from addressing the Commission.


177. GRAPSKI has been effectively banned from speaking to the CITY

Commission at public meetings as a consequence of his several arrests, the issuance of

Page 23

169. Sharpe’s allegation arose from the incident at the Kangaroo station of the

night before. Sharpe’s allegation was factually incorrect and baseless.

170. After all other speakers had concluded and before the citizens’ comments

portion of the meeting was closed, GRAPSKI rose to make a point of order in the way of

pere .

reply to Sharpe’s false allegations against him.

171. GRAPSKI was speaking during a time specifically reserved for citizen

comment and had the right to address the Commission at that time. GRAPSKI did not act

in a disruptive manner, did not threaten or disparage the Mayor, the Commission or any

members of the audience, and he otherwise acted with appropriate decorum.

172. GIB COERPER, who was then serving as Mayor of ALACHUA,

mptorily directed JERNIGAN to remove GRAPSKI from the meeting

173. As Mayor, COERPER had the authority to make this decision on behalf of

ALACHUA and he made the decision to have GRAPSKI removed from the meeting as

the final decision making authority for the CITY.

174. GRAPSKI left the meeting under protest to avoid being arrested again.

175. GRAPSKI had a right to attend the meeting guaranteed by Article 1 §§5

and 24 Florida Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution and Mayor COERPER had no reason, justification or probable cause

to remove him.

176. No reasonable public official or police officer could have believed that

grounds existed for forcibly removing GRAPSKI from the public meeting.


Page 24

trespass notices and his ejection from public meetings.

U2007 Arrest for Filing Complaint Against Jernigan

178. On Tuesday, August 7, 2007, Sharpe filed a complaint against GRAPSKI

with the ALACHUA police department pertaining to the Kangaroo gas station incident in

t officers with the ALACHUA police department

were spon

ation

which Sharpe claimed to be acting as a “concerned citizen.”

179. A second Alachua officer investigated the Kangaroo station incident and

made a second report, which concluded: “This incident was a follow up to

CR#2007008223. No further action shall be taken by this officer regarding this incident.”

180. GRAPSKI became aware that defamatory details about the Kangaroo

incident were being posted on the Internet. Because some of the details were not public

knowledge, GRAPSKI concluded tha

re sible for “leaking” that information.

181. On the morning of Wednesday, August 8, 2007, GRAPSKI went to the

offices of the ALACHUA police department and requested a meeting with then-Deputy

Chief Reiter to discuss the sources of the information about the Kangaroo station incident

that had begun appearing on the Internet.

182. Reiter informed GRAPSKI regarding the procedure for making a

complaint and provided GRAPSKI a brochure about the process.

183. Reiter agreed to make inquiries about GRAPSKI’s complaint and obtained

inform about it.

184. Despite the previous two police investigations which had concluded that

GRA SKI P had not issued a bad check and had not committed any crime, Chief

JERNIGAN obtained copies of both CR#2007008223 and CR#2007008224 and made his


olice ports about the Kangaroo matter to WATSON.

192. It was not JERNIGAN’s usual practice to inform WATSON about an

Page 25

own investigation of this $40 check incident.

185. There was no legitimate police purpose for the third investigation

undertaken by JERNIGAN. The official police investigations had already concluded with

a finding that no crime had been committed and there was no reasonable basis or

t

00

probable cause to believe that additional investigation would lead to a contrary

conclusion.

186. JERNIGAN undertook this investigation solely to uncover private

information regarding GRAPSKI in an effort to embarrass and discredit GRAPSKI in the

public eye.

187. On August 8, 2007 JERNIGAN obtained GRAPSKI’s check from the

Kangaroo station without a warrant and without a subpoena.

188. JERNIGAN telephoned the Millennium Bank in Alachua, spoke to a bank

employee, identified himself as a police officer, and without a warrant and without a

subpoena, obtained personal financial information concerning GRAPSKI’s bank account.

189. GRAPSKI did not authorize Millennium Bank to permit JERNIGAN or

ALACHUA to inspect or be informed of his financial records.

190. Despite documentation to the contrary, Chief JERNIGAN filed repor

CR#2007 8223 in which he stated that GRAPSKI’s check was not good on August 5,

2007. However, JERNIGAN’s report CR#2007008223 also concluded: “This case is

closed.”

191. At some time on or before Friday, September 10, 2007 JERNIGAN gave

the p re


Page 26

investigation of a $40.00 bad check complaint that proved groundless and JERNIGAN

did so only because the false complaint had been made against GRAPSKI.

193. WATSON then provided the police reports pertaining to the Kangaroo

incident to the members of the ALACHUA City Commission, including

Commission about an investigation of a $40.00 bad check complaint that proved

een made against

CALDERWOOD.

194. It was not WATSON’s usual practice to inform ALACHUA City

groundless and WATSON did so only because the false complaint had b

GRAPSKI.

195. On Friday, August 10, 2007, Saturday, August 11, 2007, and Sunday,

August 12, 2007 Hugh Calderwood (the former Mayor and current Commissioner’s

husb ), pand osted on the Internet information about GRAPSKI he took from Chief

JERNIGAN’s report, including information JERNIGAN obtained from his unauthorized

contacts with Millennium Bank.

196. GRAPSKI was alarmed and upset both by the CITY’s access to his

personal financial information and by the posting of false and defamatory materials on

the Internet incorporating information leaked by CITY personnel.

197. On Monday morning, August 13, 2007 GRAPSKI went to the ALACHUA

police station at about 9:30 A.M. to obtain the police reports pertaining to the Kangaroo

incident. This was the first time GRAPSKI learned of the third investigation conducted

by JERNIGAN after the formal police investigations had already been concluded.

198. At about 10:30 am on August 13, 2007, GRAPSKI returned to the

ALACHUA police station to file an official complaint against the ALACHUA police


Page 27

department and Chief JERNIGAN regarding the unauthorized access to and use of his

personal financial information.

199. GRAPSKI entered the public lobby and requested to speak with

JERNIGAN to make a complaint.

head arter

to the police station to make a complaint and requested instructions. On

info

200. JERNIGAN initially avoided speaking with GRAPSKI.

201. GRAPSKI then requested that he be permitted to speak to the second in

command for the purpose to making a complaint against JERNIGAN and others involved

in wrongfully accessing his bank records.

202. GRAPSKI was told to wait in the lobby and did so for about 20 minutes.

203. GRAPSKI sat quietly and did nothing to disturb the business of the police

qu s or the members of the public present.

204. In the meantime, JERNIGAN informed WATSON that GRAPSKI had

come

rmation and belief, GRAPSKI alleges that WATSON instructed JERNIGAN to

refuse GRAPSKI’s request to file a complaint and directed JERNIGAN to remove

GRAPSKI from the premises.

205. JERNIGAN then appeared in the public lobby, asked GRAPSKI to

accompany him outside the building onto the sidewalk in front of the entrance into the

public lobby.

206. When outside on the sidewalk in front of the public lobby, GRAPSKI

requested JERNIGAN to accept an official complaint against JERNIGAN or the

ALA ACHU personnel responsible for obtaining unauthorized information from

Millennium Bank.


Page 28

207. JERNIGAN refused to accept GRAPSKI’s complaint about himself or

anyone else and refused to let him make a written complaint with any other ALACHUA

employee.

208. GRAPSKI continued to insist that he had a right to file a complaint with

permit him to speak with

om

the department against JERNIGAN and asked JERNIGAN to

the second in charge if JERNIGAN would not accept his complaint.

209. During this conversation JERNIGAN accepted a telephone call from

WATSON at which time WATSON instructed JERNIGAN to refuse to accept

GRAPSKI’s complaint and to remove him from the premises.

210. After speaking with WATSON, JERNIGAN refused to accept

GRAPSKI’s complaint and advised GRAPSKI that no official with the CITY would

acce a cpt plaint from him.

211. Chief JERNIGAN re-entered the public lobby of the police department

building and physically locked GRAPSKI out of the public building.

212. The building was otherwise open to the public for business.

213. Several citizens were inside the public lobby conducting their public

business at the time.

214. JERNIGAN singled out GRAPSKI and only GRAPSKI for exclusion

from the public building.

215. GRAPSKI knocked on the door and asked to be permitted to file a

complaint against JERNIGAN and others involved.

216. JERNIGAN and Alachua police officer BARCIA came out of the public

lobby onto the sidewalk where GRAPSKI was standing.


st PSKI and to take him physically into custody, and he made the decision to

Page 29

217. BARCIA is the son of CALDERWOOD.

218. GRAPSKI again asked to file a complaint against JERNIGAN and others

involved.

219. JERNIGAN again refused.

attacked and battered GRAPSKI without his consent and without probable cause.

had the authority to make the decision to

arre GRA

220. BARCIA asked JERNIGAN, “Is he under arrest yet?”

221. GRAPSKI turned to JERNIGAN, asked if he were under arrest, and held

his h ds toan gether offering to be handcuffed.

222. GRAPSKI made no threatening or aggressive act of any kind whatsoever.

223. JERNIGAN, BARCIA and another ALACHUA officer then arrested

GRAPSKI. During the course of the arrest, JERNIGAN and BARCIA intentionally

seized,

224. JERNIGAN arrested GRAPSKI on a charge of trespass.

225. JERNIGAN knew that GRAPSKI had committed no crime and that no

reasonable basis exited to believe that he had committed a crime.

226. JERNIGAN had no valid reason to arrest GRAPSKI on any charge and no

reason to batter him.

227. BARCIA had no reason to arrest and batter GRAPSKI.

228. No reasonable police officer could have believed that any reason existed

to arrest GRAPSKI and no officer could have believed that there was any basis to seize,

attac bk and atter GRAPSKI, who had committed no crime and who did not resist in any

way.

229. As Chief of Police, JERNIGAN


in Gainesville for treatment of the injuries inflicted upon him stemming directly from his

Page 30

arrest GRAPSKI and take him into custody as the final decision making authority for the

CITY.

230. JERNIGAN took these actions with WATSON’s knowledge and approval.

231. This arrest made by ALACHUA, JERNIGAN and the City’s other agents,

him r hav

officers and employees was made without probable cause and for improper purposes.

232. JERNIGAN and BARCIA arrested and charged GRAPSKI with a crime

with the specific intent and purpose of interfering with GRAPSKI’s constitutional rights

to instruct his representatives and to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by

Article I §5 Florida Constitution; to petition for redress of grievances guaranteed by the

First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; to retaliate against

fo ing exercised his first amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA

to contest Alachua’s 2006 election; to retaliate against him for having prevailed in case

number 2006-CF-002034-A they had commenced against him; and to retaliate against

GRA SKI P for trying to file a complaint against JERNIGAN and other officers of the

CITY.

233. Immediately after his arrest, ALACHUA officers took GRAPSKI to a

hospital emergency room for treatment for injuries he received as a result of the battery

committed by JERNIGAN and BARCIA.

234. ALACHUA officers then took GRAPSKI to the Alachua County jail and

booked him into the jail on various charges arising out of the incident described in the

preceding paragraphs.

235. Ultimately, GRAPSKI was taken to the North Florida Regional Hospital


Page 31

arrest and battery and proximately arising from his subsequent incarceration.

236. GRAPSKI was near death and remained hospitalized under the guard of a

correctional officer for several days.

237. GRAPSKI was incarcerated for two weeks immediately after the arrest

days

n

2.

and, with some intervening periods of release, was subsequently incarcerated for 105

, fol ed by additional sporadic days of incarceration.

low

238. JERNIGAN and ALACHUA initiated a criminal prosecution against

GRAPSKI by filling a complaint with the State Attorney of the Eighth Judicial Circuit

char GRging APSKI with trespass, resisting arrest with violence, battery on JERNIGAN,

BARCIA, and on Alachua police officer Lattimer.

239. JERNIGAN initiated this prosecution as ALACHUA’s final decision

maker and did so with WATSON’s approval.

240. Based upon ALACHUA and JERNIGAN’s complaint against GRAPSKI,

the State Attorney filed an information in case number 01-2007-CF-003672A charging

GRAPSKI inter alia with trespass on land after warning, resisting an officer with

violence, battery upon an officer (meaning JERNIGAN), battery on officer BARCIA, and

batt oery up n officer Lattimer.

241. On November 13, 2009 a jury acquitted GRAPSKI of the charges of

trespass o land after warning, resisting an officer (JERNIGAN) with violence, and

battery upon JERNIGAN.

24 ALACHUA and JERNIGAN’s initiation of prosecution against GRAPSKI

on charges of trespass to land after warning, resisting an officer with violence, and

battery upon JERNIGAN was done without probable cause and for an improper purpose.


Page 32

243. No reasonable police officer could have believed that probable cause

existed to initiate a prosecution against GRAPSKI on these charges. In particular, the

initial basis for arrest – an alleged trespass after warning – was entirely pretextual and

without legal foundation.

COLOR OF STATE LAW

244. As a political subdivision of the State of Florida, organized and operating

nd its agents, including WATSON, under the laws of the State of Florida, ALACHUA a

CALDERWOOD, JERNIGAN, COERPER, and BARCIA, were, and are, acting under

color of state law and authority.

245. The actions and policies of ALACHUA, WATSON, CALDERWOOD,

JERNIGAN, COERPER, and BARCIA have deprived and will continue to deprive

Plain f oftif rights guaranteed and protected by the First, Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution and by the corresponding provisions of the

Florida Constitution.

246. The several arrests of the Plaintiff, and his repeated removals from public

meetings and the halls of Government, are not isolated events but are part of an

intentional and calculated campaign to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.

247. The individual Defendants, while acting in their capacity as officers,

employees and agents of the CITY OF ALACHUA have conspired among themselves to

bring about the repeated arrest of the Plaintiff and his exclusion from public meetings to

punish him for his political activities and for his efforts to seek relief through the Courts

of this State.

248. Defendants have also used physical force and intimidation to literally beat


Page 33

Plaintiff into submission. Plaintiff has been physically assaulted - and even threatened

with a Taser - for passive and lawful resistance to false and pretextual criminal charges.

249. The crimes of which Plaintiff has been accused are entirely pretextual and

the Defendants knew that there was no basis in law or fact to arrest and charge Plaintiff

with any crime.

250. The arrests and prosecutions complained of in this litigation have all been

resolved in Plaintiff’s favor.

DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

251. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, GRAPSKI

has

Ame n

suffe the loss of rights guaranteed to him under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth red

ndme ts to the United States Constitution and the associated rights protected under

the Florida Constitution.

252. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the unconstitutional

seizure of his person and property, his unlawful arrest and detention, and the malicious

pros onecuti of false criminal charges.

253. Plaintiff has been deprived of his First Amendment right to engage in free

expression and to petition the government for redress of his grievances.

254. In addition to the loss of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff experienced

physical and emotional injuries, pain and discomfort, embarrassment and humiliation,

psychological harm and monetary losses.

255. Plaintiff also suffered injury to his reputation due to the concerted effort

by the CITY and its officers, employees and agents, to leak false and defamatory

information about him, to publicize the several false arrests of the Plaintiff and to


Page 34

criticize him publicly for his advocacy of constitutional rights and the right of the public

to participate in government.

256. The arrest, incarceration and prosecution of GRAPSKI also forced him to

withdraw his candidacy from the election for State Representative and disrupted his

political process, to air his political views, to seek

redress of grievances and to otherwise engage in his rights as a citizen of this democracy

pursuit of an advanced degree at the University of Florida.

257. The individual Defendants engaged in a concerted campaign to deprive

Plaintiff of his First Amendment rights in violation of the United States Constitution and

to subject him to physical assault and emotional trauma through repeated arrests without

probable cause or even a reasonable belief that a crime had been committed. Plaintiff’s

right to participate as a citizen in the

are basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and long recognized in our jurisprudence.

Defendants’ actions in violating Plaintiff’s well-established rights are completely

unac ptabce le in a constitutional republic and should subject the individual Defendants to

punitive damages.

258. Plaintiff has retained JOSEPH W. LITTLE and GARY S. EDINGER as

his attorneys to represent them in this action and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee,

which fee Defendants must pay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT I - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Free Speech – Federal First Amendment)

259. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 258,

and incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.

260. This is an action for declaratory relief against Defendants CITY OF


Page 35

ALACHUA, CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD, ROBERT E.

JERNIGAN, and GIB COERPER to determine whether their repeated arrests of the

Plaintiff and other efforts to thwart his political activities violate Plaintiff’s rights under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to freedom of speech.

batt

5.

261. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

262. A continuing controversy has arisen between the parties concerning

Plaintiff’s rights to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.

263. Plaintiff has been repeatedly arrested by the Defendants when attempting

to review public records and when speaking before the ALACHUA City Commission.

Despite those arrests and the repeated violation of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff

intends to continue his activism and will redouble his efforts to secure public records and

to br g to in the attention of his fellow citizens the wrongdoing and improper policies of

CITY government and its officials.

264. Plaintiff is threatened with further arrests and is in doubt whether he will

ever be permitted to speak again before the ALACHUA Commission. Those fears are not

speculative, but are well-founded both in the long history of disputes between these

parties and by the fact that the CITY and its officials have actively conspired to violate

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights through a campaign of harassment, false arrests, physical

ery and public condemnation of Plaintiff’s character.

26 Plaintiff maintains that his arrests were and are unlawful and were

undertaken without probable cause or reasonable belief that he had committed any crime;

all such charges being pretextual and in furtherance of the Defendants’ efforts to silence


Page 36

and intimidate the Plaintiff and to deny him the ability to speak freely.

266. Likewise the repeated removal of the Plaintiff from City Commission

meetings is unlawful and in furtherance of the Defendants’ efforts to silence and

intimidate the Plaintiff and to deny him the ability to speak freely.

mplaint, is legally

267. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the violation of his

constitutional rights.

268. Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First and

Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants’ actions,

policies and procedures.

269. Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Co

sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants’ policies, practices and

actions, have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt

as to his ri ghts, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory

judgment declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;

B. That the Court find and declare that Defendants engaged in a concerted

effort to silence and censor Plaintiff’s speech through a campaign of harassment, false

arrests, physical battery and public condemnation of Plaintiff’s character, all in violation

of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

C. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on May 1, 2006 was illegal

and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the First Amendment because that

arrest was pretextual and was used to further the Defendants’ campaign to silence and


Page 37

censor Plaintiff’s speech.

D. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on February 12, 2007 was

illegal and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the First Amendment because

that arrest was pretextual and was used to further the Defendants’ campaign to silence

CLO AN, and GIB

R,

and censor Plaintiff’s speech.

E. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on August 13, 2007 was

illegal and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the First Amendment because



F. That the Court declare that the trespass warnings issued against GRAPSKI

were invalid when issued and were illegal orders.

G. That the Court declare that the prosecution of GRAPSKI on the arrest of

May 1, 2006, that terminated in GRAPSKI’s favor on November 16, 2006, was malicious

and without probable cause and was used to further the Defendants’ campaign to silence

and censor Plaintiff’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.

H. That this Court award Plaintiff money damages against all Defendants for

infringement of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, and for injury to his

person.

I. That this Court award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants

VIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD, ROBERT E. JERNIG

COERPE individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful actions

and to deter those individual Defendants and others from engaging in the same or similar

acts in the future.


Page 38

J. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, against all Defendants.

K. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to

which he may be entitled.

COUNT II - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Petition – Federal First Amendment)


reference.

nt to the United States Constitution guarantees to the

between the parties concerning

Plai

and incorporates those allegations in this Count by


ALACHUA, CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD, ROBERT E.

JER GANNI , and GIB COERPER to determine whether their repeated arrests of the

Plaintiff and other efforts to thwart his political activities violate Plaintiff’s rights under

the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

mendme 272. The First A

Plaintiff the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

273. A continuing controversy has arisen

ntiff’ ghts to petition the government on matters of public, political and individual

conc

s ri

ern.





to bring to the attention of his fellow citizens the wrongdoing and improper policies of


d an supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants’ policies, practices and

Page 39





by the fact that the CITY and its officials have actively conspired to violate

, false arrests, physical

ability to petition the

cons ution

d

parties and

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights through a campaign of harassment

battery and public condemnation of Plaintiff’s character.

276. Plaintiff maintains that his arrests were and are unlawful and were

unde en rtak without probable cause or reasonable belief to believe that he had committed

any crime; all such charges being pretextual and in furtherance of the Defendants’ efforts

to silence and intimidate the Plaintiff and to physically deny him the

government for redress of his grievances.



intimidate the Plaintiff and to deny him the ability to petition the government for redress

of his grievances.

278. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of the violation of his

tit al rights.

279. Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First,

and urteFo enth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants’

actions, policies and procedures.

2 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally

soun

80.


Page 40


as to his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory


campaign of harassment, false arrests, physical battery and public

condemnation of Plaintiff’s character, all in

illeg of grievances



B. That the Court find and declare that Defendants engaged in a concerted

effort to prevent Plaintiff from petitioning government for the redress of grievances

through a

violation of the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

C. That the Court declare that the trespass notices issued to Plaintiff and his

ejection from public meetings and public offices operated as a prior restraint, were not

narrowly tailored and were not supported by a compelling government interest.

D. That the Court declare that the trespass notices issued to Plaintiff and his

ejection from public meetings and public offices constituted an unconstitutional

infringement upon Plaintiff’s right to petition government for redress of grievances.

E. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on May 1, 2006 was illegal

and violated Plaintiff’s right to petition government for the redress of grievances under

the First Amendment because that arrest was pretextual and was used to further the

Defendants’ campaign to prevent Plaintiff from petitioning government for redress of

grievances.

F. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on February 12, 2007 was

al and violated Plaintiff’s right to petition government for the redress


Page 41

under the First Amendment because that arrest was pretextual and was used to further the


grievances.

G. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on August 13, 2007 was

That the Court declare that the trespass warnings issued against GRAPSKI

I.

illegal and violated Plaintiff’s right to petition government for the redress of grievances

unde Fir the rst Amendment because that arrest was pretextual and was used to further the


grievances.

H.


That this Court award Plaintiff money damages against all Defendants for


person.

J. That this Court award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants

CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD, ROBERT E. JERNIGAN, and GIB

COERPER, individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful actions

and deterto those individual Defendants and others from engaging in the same or similar

acts in the future.

K. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reas ble ona attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

L. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to



Page 42

UCOUNT III - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Federal First Amendment)



UA

pu

ved from two ALACHUA City Commission meetings; to-wit: on February 12,

200 nd A

282. This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACH

from enforcing the trespass warnings issued against Plaintiff and from taking any further

actio to prn event Plaintiff from addressing the CITY Commission in accordance with

rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

283. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiff’s rights

to access blic property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the

conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.

284. Plaintiff was issued a trespass notice on February 12, 2007 purporting to

exclude Plaintiff from the ALACHUA City Hall. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass on

two occasions; to-wit: February 12, 2007 and August 13, 2007. In addition, Plaintiff has

been remo

7 a ugust 6, 2007.

285. Plaintiff has been threatened with further arrests should he ever again

“disrupt” a meeting of the ALACHUA City Commission. Past arrests and threats show

that the CITY considers any attempt on the part of Plaintiff to address issues in

cont versyro to be an unacceptable “disruption”.

286. The CITY’s trespass notices and threats to eject Plaintiff from public

meetings prevent Plaintiff from petitioning government for redress of grievances.

287. Written communications to the CITY lack the impact of face-to-face


Page 43

interactions with Commissioners and the public, particularly given Florida’s strong laws

and policies requiring that government decisions be made at public meetings “in the

Sunshine”. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s inability to physically attend Commission meetings

substantially infringes upon his right to petition government for redress of grievances.

without im

289

ntiff’s First

Ame

291. Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court issues a

t injunction prohibiting Defendant from violating Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights in the f

288. The trespass notices, arrests and threats to eject Plaintiff from public

meetings are not narrowly tailored to address any compelling government interest. The

CITY’S interest in orderly public meetings can be met through the exercise of its arrest

powers should Plaintiff exceed the bounds of decorum on any individual occasion

posing an effective ban on communications with the CITY Commission at

public meetings.

. The trespass notices, arrests and threats to eject Plaintiff from public

meetings operate as a prior restraint and a continuing violation of Plai

ndm right to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances, now

and in the f

ent

uture.

290. There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving

Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the CITY’s effective

ban on Plaintiff’s ability to speak to the CITY Commission at public meetings.

permanen

uture.

292. The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In

fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendant’s, which


Page 44

interfere with the public’s rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:

A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;

Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever

Plaintif

ay be entitled.

B. That the

enjoining Defendant CITY OF ALACHUA and its various agents and employees from

enforcing any existing trespass notice against Plaintiff barring him from accessing the

ALA HUAC City Hall or any location where a CITY Commission meeting is being held

duri suchng meeting.

C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever

enjoining Defendant and its various agents and employees from issuing further trespass

warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs without a Court

Order.

D. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever

enjoining Defendant and its various agents and employees from excluding or removing

f from a public meeting in the absence of a Court order unless Plaintiff poses a

physical threat to participants or disrupts the meeting to the point where order cannot be

restored through ordinary means.

E. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

F. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to

which he m


Page 45

UCOUNT IV - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Federal Fourth Amendment Violation - February 12, 2007)

293. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 159

and 244 through 258 and incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.

ions

JER


ALACHUA, CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD and ROBERT E.

JER GANNI , to determine whether their arrest of the Plaintiff on February 12, 2007

viola d Plate intiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

295. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that

“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but

upon probable cause…”.

296. Plaintiff had a constitutional right to attend the ALACHUA City

Commission meeting on February 12, 2007 and further had the right to address the City

Commission during the time set aside for citizen comment. At the conclusion of his

remarks to the ALACHUA City Commission, Plaintiff had the right to remain in the

audi ce to en hear the comments of other citizens and to observe the actions and decis

of the ALACHUA City Commission.

297. CALDERWOOD had no legal basis to order GRAPSKI’s removal from

the ALACHUA City Commission meeting on February 12, 2007 and WATSON and

NIGAN had no legal basis to arrest GRAPSKI.

298. No probable cause existed to detain or arrest GRAPSKI and no reasonable

person could have believed that he was committing a crime by attending and participating


Page 46

in the February 12, 2007 ALACHUA City Commission meeting.

299. Defendants knew that there was no lawful basis to arrest and exclude

Plaintiff from the February 12, 2007 ALACHUA City Commission meeting.

300. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to

. Defendants further violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by

g and participating in the wrongful prosecution of Plaintiff.

dants’ actions in arresting and prosecuting Plaintiff were not isolated

gn b hich LAC ees

l in an effort to

c n to ca e

olated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights as well as the

ied out with complete disregard for the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Amendment


ff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and as

those rights will be affected by the continuation of the policies and actions of Defendants

be free of unreasonable seizures by arresting Plaintiff and excluding him from the

February 12, 2007 ALACHUA City Commission meeting.

301

arranging for his incarceration in jail, by filing false criminal charges against him and by

actively encouragin

302. Defen

acts, but were part of a larger campai y w A HUA and its officers, employ

and agents harassed, intimidated and physically battered Plaintiff, al

disrupt his speech and political a ti to violate his constitutional rights a d usvities,

him personal pain, suffering and damages.

303. Defendants vi

clearly established law in this Circuit.

304. The violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights was intentional,

malicious and carr

305. Plaintiff has been damaged by the violation of his Fourth

rights.

Plainti


Page 47

as described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause.

B. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ arrest of

Plaintiff on February 12, 2007, and his exclusion from the ALACHUA City Commission

meeting, violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights for the reasons stated above.

C. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ actions in

incarcerating Plaintiff, filing false criminal charges against him and their participation in

the prosecution of those false charges violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights for

the reasons stated above.

D. That this Court award Plaintiff money damages against all Defendants for


person.

E. That this Court award Plaintiffs punitive damages against Defendants

CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD and ROBERT E. JERNIGAN

individually, to punish them for their unlawful actions and to deter those individual

Defendants and others from engaging in the same or similar acts in the future.

F. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to



Page 48

UCOUNT V - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Federal Fourth Amendment Violation - August 13, 2007)

307. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 and

160 through 258, and incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.


ALACHUA, CLOVIS WATSON, JR., ROBERT E. JERNIGAN and PATRICK

BARCIA, JR., to determine whether their arrest of the Plaintiff on August 13, 2007

violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

309. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that

“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but

upon probable cause…”.

310. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to petition government for redress of

grievances. That right specifically includes the right to file complaints against CITY

officials who abuse the law.

311. Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to file such complaints against CITY

officials for the wrongful actions addressed hereinabove, including the improper effort to

obtain and release Plaintiff’s personal financial records.

312. Plaintiff attempted to follow the CITY’s procedures for filing a complaint

and attempted to file that complaint with officers designated by the CITY to receive such

complaints.

313. WATSON, JERNIGAN and BARCIA had no legal basis to arrest

GRAPSKI on August 13, 2007.


Page 49

314. No probable cause existed to detain or arrest GRAPSKI and no reasonable

person could have believed that he was committing a crime by entering the police station

for purposes of filing a lawful complaint against officers and employees of the CITY.

315. Defendants knew that there was no lawful basis to arrest Plaintiff on

August 13, 2007 and no lawful reason to prevent him from filing a complaint against

CITY officials.

316. Defendants intentionally violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to

be free of unreasonable seizures by arresting Plaintiff on August 13, 2007.

317. Defendants further violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by

arranging for his incarceration in jail, by filing false criminal charges against him and by

actively encouraging and participating in the wrongful prosecution of Plaintiff.

318. Defendants actions in arresting and prosecuting Plaintiff were not isolated

acts, but were part of a larger campaign by which ALACHUA and its officers, employees

and agents harassed, intimidated and physically battered Plaintiff, all in an effort to

disrupt his speech and political activities, to violate his constitutional rights, and to cause

him personal pain, suffering and damages.

319. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights as well as the

clearly established law in this Circuit.

320. The violation of Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights was intentional,

malicious and carried out with complete disregard for the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

321. Plaintiff has been damaged by the violation of his Fourth Amendment

rights.



Page 50

Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and as

those rights will be affected by the continuation of the policies and actions of Defendants

as described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:


B. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ arrest of

Plaintiff on August 13, 2007 violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights for the reasons

stated above.

C. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the Defendants’ actions in

incarcerating Plaintiff, filing false criminal charges against him and their participation in

the prosecution of those false charges violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights for

the reasons stated above.

D. That this Court award Plaintiff money damages against all Defendants for


person.

E. That this Court award Plaintiffs punitive damages against Defendants

CLOVIS WATSON, JR., ROBERT E. JERNIGAN and PATRICK BARCIA, JR.,

individually, to punish them for their unlawful actions and to deter those individual

Defendants and others from engaging in the same or similar acts in the future.

F. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to



Page 51

COUNT VI - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Free Speech – Florida Constitution)



324. This Court has jurisdiction over this state law cause of action because

Plaintiff’s other claims involve Federal Questions and this Court has supplemental

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

325. This is an action for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, UFla.Stat.U

against the CITY OF ALACHUA to determine whether the CITY’s trespass notices,

arrests and threats to eject Plaintiff from public meetings violate Plaintiff’s rights under

Article I, §4 of the Florida Constitution.

326. Article I, §4 of the Florida Constitution provides that “[e]very person may

speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse

of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…”


to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.









Page 52







undertaken without probable cause or reasonable belief to believe that he had committed


to silence and intimidate the Plaintiff and to physically deny him the ability to speak

freely on matters of public concern.



intimidate the Plaintiff and to speak freely on matters of public concern.

332. Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the Florida

Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendant’s actions, policies and

procedures.

333. Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally








Page 53

B. That the Court find and declare that the CITY and its officers, employees

and agents engaged in a concerted effort to prevent Plaintiff from engaging in free speech

through a campaign of harassment, false arrests, physical battery and public

condemnation of Plaintiff’s character, all in violation of the Florida Constitution.






infringement upon Plaintiff’s right to free speech.


and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the Florida Constitution because that

arrest was pretextual and was used to further the Defendants’ campaign to silence and

censor Plaintiff’s speech.

F. That the Court declare that the prosecution of GRAPSKI on the arrest of



and censor Plaintiff’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.

G. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on February 12, 2007 was

illegal and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the Florida Constitution because



H. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on August 13, 2007 was


Page 54

illegal and violated Plaintiff’s right of free speech under the Florida Constitution because



I. That the Court declare that the prosecution of GRAPSKI on the arrest of

August 13, 2007, on charges of trespass and battery upon JERNIGAN, that terminated in

GRAPSKI’s favor, was malicious and without probable cause and was used to further the

Defendants’ campaign to silence and censor Plaintiff’s speech in violation of the First

Amendment.

J. That the Court declare that the trespass warnings issued against GRAPSKI




UCOUNT VII - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Petition – Florida Constitution)











Page 55

337. Article I, §5 of the Florida Constitution provides that “[t]he people shall

have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for

redress of grievances.

338. A continuing controversy has arisen between the parties concerning

Plaintiff’s rights to petition the government on matters of public, political and individual

concern.














undertaken without probable cause or reasonable belief to believe that he had committed


to silence and intimidate the Plaintiff and to physically deny him the ability to petition the

government for redress of his grievances.


Page 56



intimidate the Plaintiff and to deny him the ability to petition the government for redress

of his grievances.



procedures.








B. That the Court find and declare that the CITY and its officers, employees

and agents engaged in a concerted effort to prevent Plaintiff from petitioning government

for the redress of grievances through a campaign of harassment, false arrests, physical

battery and public condemnation of Plaintiff’s character, all in violation of the Florida

Constitution.






Page 57


infringement upon Plaintiff’s right to petition government for redress of grievances.


and violated Plaintiff’s right to petition government for the redress of grievances under

the Florida Constitution because that arrest was pretextual and was used to further the

Defendants’ campaign to violate Plaintiff’s rights under the Florida Constitution.

F. That the Court declare that the prosecution of GRAPSKI on the arrest of



and censor Plaintiff’s speech in violation of the Florida Constitution.

G. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on February 12, 2007 was




H. That the Court declare that GRAPSKI’s arrest on August 13, 2007 was




I. That the Court declare that the prosecution of GRAPSKI on the arrest of

August 13, 2007, on charges of trespass and battery upon JERNIGAN, that terminated in

GRAPSKI’s favor, was malicious and without probable cause in violation of Plaintiff’s

rights under the Florida Constitution.

J. That the Court declare that the trespass warnings issued against GRAPSKI


Page 58




UCOUNT VIII - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Free Speech and Access - Florida Constitution)






347. This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA

from enforcing the trespass warnings issued against Plaintiff and from taking any further

action to prevent Plaintiff from addressing the CITY Commission in accordance with

rights guaranteed under Article I, Sections 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution.

348. Article I, §4 of the Florida Constitution provides that “[e]very person may

speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse

of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech…”

349. Article I, §5 of the Florida Constitution provides that “[t]he people shall

have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to petition for

redress of grievances.

350. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiff’s right

of free speech and the right to petition government for redress of grievances as

guaranteed by the Florida Constitution.


Page 59

351. Plaintiff was issued a trespass notice on February 12, 2007 purporting to

exclude Plaintiff from the ALACHUA City Hall. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass on

two occasions; to-wit: February 12, 2007 and August 13, 2007. In addition, Plaintiff has

been removed from two ALACHUA City Commission meetings; to-wit: on February 12,

2007 and August 6, 2007.

352. Plaintiff has been threatened with further arrests should he ever again

“disrupt” a meeting of the ALACHUA City Commission. Past arrests and threats show

that the CITY considers any attempt on the part of Plaintiff to address issues in

controversy to be an unacceptable “disruption”.

353. The CITY’s trespass notices and threats to eject Plaintiff from public

meetings prevent Plaintiff from petitioning government for redress of grievances and

from fully exercising his right of free speech on topics of public concern.

354. Written communications to the CITY lack the impact of face-to-face

interactions with Commissioners and the public, particularly given Florida’s strong laws

and policies requiring that government decisions be made at public meetings “in the

Sunshine”. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s inability to physically attend Commission meetings

substantially infringes upon his right to petition government for redress of grievances.


meetings are not narrowly tailored to address any compelling government interest. The

CITY’S interest in orderly public meetings can be met through the exercise of its arrest

powers should Plaintiff exceed the bounds of decorum on any individual occasion

without imposing an effective ban on communications with the CITY Commission at

public meetings.


Page 60


meetings operate as a prior restraint and a continuing violation of Plaintiff’s right of free

speech and right to petition the government for redress of grievances, now and in the

future.


Plaintiff’s rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the

enforcement of the CITY’s effective ban on Plaintiff’s ability to speak to the CITY

Commission at public meetings.


permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from violating Plaintiff’s constitutional

rights in the future.



interfere with the public’s rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.



B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever



ALACHUA City Hall or any location where a CITY Commission meeting is being held

during such meeting.




Page 61

warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs without a Court

Order.


enjoining Defendant and its various agents and employees from excluding or removing

Plaintiff from a public meeting in the absence of a Court order unless Plaintiff poses a

physical threat to participants or disrupts the meeting to the point where order cannot be

restored through ordinary means.

E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to


UCOUNT IX - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Access Public Records – Florida Constitution)


and incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.








363. Article I, §44 of the Florida Constitution provides that “[e]very person has

the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the

official business of any public body, officer or employee of the state, or persons acting on


Page 62

their behalf…”


to access public records of the CITY OF ALACHUA.

365. On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff entered City Hall along with two other

citizens for the purpose of inquiring about the status of public records requests sent by

Plaintiff and others.

366. At that time and place, Plaintiff acted no differently than the other citizens

present for the same purpose.

367. At that time and place, Plaintiff had the same right to access City Hall as

the other two citizens, or indeed, any of the citizens of ALACHUA.

368. Plaintiff was treated differently than the two citizens who accompanied

him and differently than any other citizen of the CITY.

369. A trespass warning was issued only to Plaintiff and not to his compatriots

or other citizens.

370. The CITY has not previously issued trespass warnings to other citizens

directing them not to approach City Hall or its environs.

371. Plaintiff was singled out for selective and unequal enforcement and

suffered a unique disability imposed upon him and no other citizens of ALACHUA.

372. The CITY issued the trespass warning because it wishes to hide public

records and to frustrate Plaintiff’s efforts toward political accountability.

373. Plaintiff often went to City Hall to personally inspect voluminous records

rather than bear the exorbitant cost of copying numerous documents.

374. Plaintiff is no longer able to access City Hall for the purpose of inspecting


Page 63

and obtaining public records.

375. The trespass warning, arrests and threats of arrest had the specific purpose

and effect of denying Plaintiff the ability to access public records in the future.

376. The CITY specifically intended to frustrate and deprive Plaintiff of his

constitutional right to access public records when it issued the trespass warning, when it

arrested Plaintiff, and when it threatened to do so.

377. The trespass warnings, arrests and threats were not issued for a legitimate

law enforcement purpose, but were issued in order to silence Plaintiff and frustrate his

attempts to exercise his constitutional rights to access public records.



procedures.


sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendant’s policies and practices,

have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to

his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment

declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.



enforcement of the trespass warnings, threats and arrests and Defendant’s policies and

actions with respect to Plaintiff’s attempts to review public records.




Page 64

B. That the Court declare that the February 12, 2007 trespass warning was an

unconstitutional infringement upon Plaintiff’s right to inspect and access public records

under Article I, §24 of the Florida Constitution.

C. That the Court declare that the February 12, 2007 trespass warning was

invalid when issued and is an illegal order.

D. That the Court declare that the CITY’s subsequent efforts to harass,

intimidate and exclude Plaintiff from City Hall, including the several arrests, removals

and exclusions from public meetings, were part of an illegal campaign to deprive Plaintiff

of his right to access public records.



UCOUNT X - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Public Records - Florida Constitution)

381. Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 2 through 258

and 361 through 375 and incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.






enforcement of the CITY’s effective ban on Plaintiff’s access to public records.


permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from violating Plaintiff’s constitutional


Page 65

rights in the future.



interfere with the public’s rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.



B. That this Court enter a mandatory injunction requiring the CITY and its

various agents and employees to accept public records requests made by Plaintiff in

writing or in person and that the CITY act on such public records requests promptly as

required by Florida law.




ALACHUA City Hall for the purpose of making public records request as provided by

Florida law.



warnings against the Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs without a Court

Order.




Page 66

UCOUNT XI

(State Law Claim - False Arrest – February 12, 2007)






388. This is an action for damages against ALACHUA, WATSON,

CALDERWOOD and JERNIGAN brought under the laws of the State of Florida and

based on the illegal arrest and detention of Plaintiff.

389. Defendants did not have a warrant or Court order authorizing Plaintiff’s

arrest or detention on February 12, 2007.

390. Defendants had no legal basis to physically detain and arrest the Plaintiff

and Defendants knew that the detention and arrest was without legal basis.

391. Defendants had no probable cause to believe that Plaintiff had committed

any crime on February 12, 2007.

392. A reasonable police officer in similar circumstances could not have

believed that Plaintiff committed a crime or breached the peace at the February 12, 2007

ALACHUA Commission meeting.

393. Defendants arrested Plaintiff because they disagreed with the content of

Plaintiff’s speech, with his several suits against the CITY and because of his political

activism and not because the Plaintiff was violating any law or otherwise breaching the

peace.


Page 67

394. Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously with the express intention

of depriving Plaintiff of his freedom and of his civil liberties.

395. Plaintiff was detained and arrested against his will.

396. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of his

illegal arrest and detention, including loss of his freedom, physical discomfort, pain and

suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment.

397. Plaintiff sues ALACHUA in negligence for having negligently trained and

instructed the foregoing officers and negligently permitted them to take the foregoing

wrongful actions against GRAPSKI.



B. That this Court award Plaintiff money damages against ALACHUA

pursuant to §768.28 Fla. Stat. to compensate for the injuries ALACHUA’s negligence

caused him to suffer.

C. That this Court award Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages

against Defendants CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD and ROBERT E.

JERNIGAN, individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful

actions and to deter those individual Defendants and others from engaging in the same or

similar acts in the future.

D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs together with all other

relief in law and in equity to which he may be entitled.


Page 68

UCOUNT XII

(State Law Tort Claim – Battery - February 12, 2007)






400. This is an action against ALACHUA and JERNIGAN to recover damages

for battery.

401. While serving in his capacity as Chief of Police for the City of

ALACHUA, JERNIGAN had offensive, non-consensual physical contact with Plaintiff.

402. Specifically, JERNIGAN handcuffed the Plaintiff and assisted in dragging

him from the County Commission meeting.

403. JERNIGAN took these actions at the direction of the Mayor,

CALDERWOOD, and under the supervision of the City Manager, WATSON.

404. Other law enforcement officers employed by the CITY assisted

JERNIGAN is dragging and carrying Plaintiff to the police station and, in the course of

doing so, dropped him and threatened him with a Taser, all against Plaintiff’s will and

without his consent.

405. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to bodily privacy and to be secure in his

person against illegal seizures.

406. Defendants ALACHUA and JERNIGAN knew that there was no legal

basis to touch Plaintiff or to physically remove his against his will from a public meeting


Page 69

in a public facility.

407. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ physical assaults on

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including loss of his freedom, physical

discomfort, pain and suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment.







pursuant to §768.28, UFla.Stat.U to compensate Plaintiff for the injuries ALACHUA’s

negligence caused him to suffer.


against Defendant JERNIGAN, individually, to punish JERNIGAN for his unlawful

actions and to deter JERNIGAN and others from engaging in the same or similar acts in

the future.



UCOUNT XIII

(State Law Claim – Malicious Prosecution – February 12, 2007)





Page 70




CALDERWOOD and JERNIGAN brought under the laws of the State of Florida and

based on the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.


any crime on February 12, 2007.


believed that Plaintiff committed a crime or breached the peace at the February 12, 2007

ALACHUA Commission meeting.

414. Defendants filed criminal charges against Plaintiff knowing at the time

they did so that Plaintiff had not committed any crime.

415. Once film of the incident was reviewed, it became obvious that Plaintiff

had committed no crime and that there was no basis to prosecute Plaintiff on any charges.

Despite this knowledge, the Defendants refused to drop the charges and persisted in their

efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted.

416. Defendants maliciously filed and pursued criminal charges against

Plaintiff on charges he did not commit without probable cause and for the improper

purpose of interfering with his right of free speech and the right to petition government

for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution; and to retaliate against him for exercising his First

Amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA to contest Alachua’s 2006

election on grounds of misconduct of its officers and officials.


Page 71



418. Plaintiff was detained and prosecuted against his will.

419. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of the

malicious prosecution on false charges, including loss of his freedom, physical

discomfort, pain and suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment

and lost income.










against Defendants CLOVIS WATSON, JR., JEAN CALDERWOOD and ROBERT E.

JERNIGAN, individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful





UCOUNT XIV


Page 72

(State Law Claim - False Arrest – August 13, 2007)







JERNIGAN and BARCIA brought under the laws of the State of Florida and based on

the illegal arrest and detention of Plaintiff.

424. Defendants did not have a warrant or Court order authorizing Plaintiff’s

arrest or detention on August 13, 2007.

425. Defendants had no legal basis to physically detain and arrest the Plaintiff

and Defendants knew that the detention and arrest was without legal basis.


any crime on August 13, 2007.


believed that Plaintiff trespassed or committed a crime on August 13, 2007 when he

attempted to file a complaint against official wrongdoing by CITY officials.

428. Defendants arrested Plaintiff because they wished to thwart his efforts to

file a complaint against official wrongdoing by CITY officials and as part of their

campaign to punish Plaintiff for his political speech, his several suits against the CITY,

and his political activism, and not because the Plaintiff was violating any law or

otherwise breaching the peace.


Page 73



430. Plaintiff was detained and arrested against his will.

431. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of his

illegal arrest and detention, including loss of his freedom, physical discomfort, pain and

suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment.










against Defendants CLOVIS WATSON, JR., ROBERT E. JERNIGAN, and PATRICK

BARCIA, JR., individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful






Page 74

UCOUNT XV

(State Law Tort Claim – Battery - August 13, 2007)






435. This is an action against ALACHUA and BARCIA to recover damages for

battery.

436. While serving in his capacity as an officer of the ALACHUA police

department, BARCIA had offensive, non-consensual physical contact with Plaintiff.

437. Specifically, BARCIA handcuffed the Plaintiff and physically beat the

Plaintiff when GRAPSKI passively refused to walk with BARCIA following his

unlawful arrest on August 13, 2007.

438. BARCIA took these actions at the direction of Chief of Police JERNIGAN

and City Manager WATSON.

439. Other law enforcement officers employed by the CITY assisted BARCIA

in dragging and carrying Plaintiff away and in beating the Plaintiff when Plaintiff

passively refused to walk with them following his arrest, all against Plaintiff’s will and

without his consent.

440. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to bodily privacy and to be secure in his

person against illegal seizures.

441. Defendants ALACHUA and BARCIA knew that there was no legal basis


Page 75

to touch Plaintiff or to physically remove him against his will from a public meeting

where Plaintiff had a right to be.

442. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ physical assaults on

Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including loss of his freedom, physical

discomfort, pain and suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment.









C. That this Court award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages

against Defendant BARCIA, individually, to punish BARCIA for his unlawful actions

and to deter BARCIA and others from engaging in the same or similar acts in the future.



UCOUNT XVI

(State Law Claim – Malicious Prosecution – August 13, 2007)





Page 76




JERNIGAN and BARCIA brought under the laws of the State of Florida and based on

the malicious prosecution of Plaintiff.


any crime on August 13, 2007.


believed that Plaintiff trespassed or committed a crime on August 13, 2007 when he

attempted to file a complaint against official wrongdoing by CITY officials.

449. Defendants filed criminal charges against Plaintiff knowing at the time

they did so that Plaintiff had not committed any crime.

450. Upon investigation of the alleged incident, it became obvious that Plaintiff

had not committed any crime and that there was no basis to prosecute Plaintiff on any

charges. Despite this knowledge, the Defendants refused to drop the charges and

persisted in their efforts to have Plaintiff prosecuted.

451. Defendants maliciously filed and pursued criminal charges against

Plaintiff on charges he did not commit without probable cause and for the improper

purpose of interfering with his right of free speech and the right to petition government

for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution; and to retaliate against him for exercising his First

Amendment right to join in the suit against ALACHUA to contest Alachua’s 2006

election.


Page 77



453. Plaintiff was detained and prosecuted against his will.

454. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a direct and proximate result of the

malicious prosecution on false charges, including loss of his freedom, physical

discomfort, pain and suffering, fear of physical assault, humiliation and embarrassment

and lost income.










against Defendants CLOVIS WATSON, JR., ROBERT E. JERNIGAN, and PATRICK

BARCIA, JR., individually, to punish those individual Defendants for their unlawful






Page 78

Demand for Jury Trial

456. GRAPSKI demands trial by jury on all claims made herein.

GARY S. EDINGER & ASSOCIATES, P.A /s/ Gary S. Edinger /s/ Joseph W. Little GARY S. EDINGER, Esquire JOSEPH W. LITTLE Florida Bar No.: 0606812 Florida Bar No. 196749 305 N.E. 1st Street 3731 N.W. 13th Place Gainesville, Florida 32601 Gainesville, Florida 32605 (352) 338-4440/ 337-0696 (Fax) (352) 273-0660 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff


Date post:	10-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	charlie-grapski
View:	6,661 times
Download:	12 times

Complaint - Grapski v. Alachua - Federal Civil Rights lawsuit

Documents